While playing Blur the other day with a friend, we got to wondering what stats and behaviors the game tweaks to adjust difficulty. Then we thought, "Wouldn't it be great if games allowed players to mix and match the stats how we please?"
For example, the settings which affect difficulty in Blur (regardless of which the developers coded into the Easy, Medium and Hard options) include vehicle speed, vehicle durability, collision damage, powerup strength, powerup frequency, mod availability, and number of laps.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems a fairly simple system of checkboxes and sliders (ala Oblivion's difficulty slider) would enable players to tailor gameplay to exactly their preferences.
Some players would turn off collision damage. Some would create endurance races with many laps or quick one-lap competitions. Others might make powerups available but scarce.
What's wrong with this scenario? I'm basically describing a detailed cheat mode... the sort that was extremely popular in Goldeneye 64. Such options do not eliminate appreciation for the developers careful balancing. They simply add further ways to play the game at very little developer expense.
Almost any style of game can benefit from such options which exponentially expand gameplay customization. This feature would simultaneously open the game up to more playstyles (potential consumers) and encourage players to keep their games for replay (discouraging trade-ins).
It's a no-brainer.
Showing posts with label multiplayer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label multiplayer. Show all posts
Monday, March 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
on the horizon 9-7-10
Here's a brief explanation of why I'm looking forward to particular games.
Halo: Reach
This video shows why. The most common failure of competitive multiplayer modes is a failure to separate people of different skill levels and, just as importantly, different goals. Some people play for the end results... stats, rankings, challenge completion, etc. Others, like me, play more for the experience itself... the grenade toss into a sniper perch, the point-blank shotgun blast that throws the enemy back, getting killed by your own sticky grenade as the enemy runs toward you. Players like me are less concerned with optimal loadouts and strategies because we prioritize fresh and compelling experiences over winning.
Halo: Reach seems to address this through a refined matchmaking system that goes beyond soft separation and actually divides people into tiers. The fanatics and achievement junkies can have their tier and the "casual" players can have theirs. And, again -- just as importantly, the matchmaking system also asks preferences on Chattiness, Motivation, Teamwork and Tone.
Customization is the other reason I'm interested.
Fable 3
I've recently been surprised at how replayable Fable 2 is. The humor, the joyful art style, the skill options and the moral options are all fun many months after my first (and second) playthrough.
Fable 3 seems to have made co-op actually enjoyable by enabling the use of player-developed characters and making the two players' cameras independent. But it's the single-player mode I'm mostly interested in. The weapons that morph depending on how you use them could be great. And I'm anxious to dive into the latter half of the game, which focuses on making decisions as ruler of Albion. Much will depend on whether the moral options are not so limited as to force us into decisions we don't agree with.
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Black Ops is offering more customization, which is good. For the most part, I'm interested in this Call of Duty for the same reasons I liked the last ones, despite the mediocre matchmaking and inexcusable frequency of connection troubles. I love earning new guns and upgrades, and doing so keeps gameplay fresh by encouraging me to change my loadout often.
I was surprised to learn there will be a bot mode. I haven't heard anything about being able to invite another player to join the fight against bots, but it's a start. I'm still dumbfounded by the industry's failure to repeat Perfect Dark 64's brilliant bot mode. In the interview I saw, Treyarch's spokeman explained it as practice for people before they fight other players (it has a separate ranking system). I wonder sometimes if shooter developers think all shooter fans are achievement junkies like themselves. A bot mode doesn't have to be practice. Sometimes, even the most skilled players want a more relaxing game. And some players prefer more casual play all the time.
Whatever the reasons, was Perfect Dark 64's bot mode not as popular as I think it was? Is popularity not why it was freshened up for re-release on Xbox Live? How many people downloaded Monday Night Combat recently? There are obviously a lot of gamers who like playing against bots, so why not meet the demand and make a profit?
On my sidebar, you'll see a list of other games I'm hopeful for. Most won't be out until next year. I recommend taking a close look at Brink.
Halo: Reach
This video shows why. The most common failure of competitive multiplayer modes is a failure to separate people of different skill levels and, just as importantly, different goals. Some people play for the end results... stats, rankings, challenge completion, etc. Others, like me, play more for the experience itself... the grenade toss into a sniper perch, the point-blank shotgun blast that throws the enemy back, getting killed by your own sticky grenade as the enemy runs toward you. Players like me are less concerned with optimal loadouts and strategies because we prioritize fresh and compelling experiences over winning.
Halo: Reach seems to address this through a refined matchmaking system that goes beyond soft separation and actually divides people into tiers. The fanatics and achievement junkies can have their tier and the "casual" players can have theirs. And, again -- just as importantly, the matchmaking system also asks preferences on Chattiness, Motivation, Teamwork and Tone.
Customization is the other reason I'm interested.
Fable 3
I've recently been surprised at how replayable Fable 2 is. The humor, the joyful art style, the skill options and the moral options are all fun many months after my first (and second) playthrough.
Fable 3 seems to have made co-op actually enjoyable by enabling the use of player-developed characters and making the two players' cameras independent. But it's the single-player mode I'm mostly interested in. The weapons that morph depending on how you use them could be great. And I'm anxious to dive into the latter half of the game, which focuses on making decisions as ruler of Albion. Much will depend on whether the moral options are not so limited as to force us into decisions we don't agree with.
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Black Ops is offering more customization, which is good. For the most part, I'm interested in this Call of Duty for the same reasons I liked the last ones, despite the mediocre matchmaking and inexcusable frequency of connection troubles. I love earning new guns and upgrades, and doing so keeps gameplay fresh by encouraging me to change my loadout often.
I was surprised to learn there will be a bot mode. I haven't heard anything about being able to invite another player to join the fight against bots, but it's a start. I'm still dumbfounded by the industry's failure to repeat Perfect Dark 64's brilliant bot mode. In the interview I saw, Treyarch's spokeman explained it as practice for people before they fight other players (it has a separate ranking system). I wonder sometimes if shooter developers think all shooter fans are achievement junkies like themselves. A bot mode doesn't have to be practice. Sometimes, even the most skilled players want a more relaxing game. And some players prefer more casual play all the time.
Whatever the reasons, was Perfect Dark 64's bot mode not as popular as I think it was? Is popularity not why it was freshened up for re-release on Xbox Live? How many people downloaded Monday Night Combat recently? There are obviously a lot of gamers who like playing against bots, so why not meet the demand and make a profit?
On my sidebar, you'll see a list of other games I'm hopeful for. Most won't be out until next year. I recommend taking a close look at Brink.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
hardcore for casuals
I was happy to hear that Left 4 Dead 2 will include a sort of hardcore mode. Players can opt to give up aid from the interface, like being able to see one's teammates through walls by a surrounding glow.
Hardcore modes don't please only the hardcore. They also please casual players by getting hardcore players the hell out of their games.
For a casual player, there are few things more annoying than a fellow player trying to squeeze your every action into some achievement fanatic's model. It's like all freedom of choice is robbed from you as a tyrant barks out a strategy that he grabbed off some website for people who are more concerned about being the best than having fun.
I'm really not trying to insult hardcore players. I realize that winning is the definition of fun for some people, and that's fine. I enjoy victory and competition, myself, but I'm generally more concerned with the journey than the end; as are many gamers.
I'm just pointing out that providing a hardcore mode or customizable multiplayer scenarios allows hardcore and casual players to each enjoy playing the game their own way. A hardcore mode can be a good idea even if the hardcore are not a major part of your target audience.
Hardcore modes don't please only the hardcore. They also please casual players by getting hardcore players the hell out of their games.
For a casual player, there are few things more annoying than a fellow player trying to squeeze your every action into some achievement fanatic's model. It's like all freedom of choice is robbed from you as a tyrant barks out a strategy that he grabbed off some website for people who are more concerned about being the best than having fun.
I'm really not trying to insult hardcore players. I realize that winning is the definition of fun for some people, and that's fine. I enjoy victory and competition, myself, but I'm generally more concerned with the journey than the end; as are many gamers.
I'm just pointing out that providing a hardcore mode or customizable multiplayer scenarios allows hardcore and casual players to each enjoy playing the game their own way. A hardcore mode can be a good idea even if the hardcore are not a major part of your target audience.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
avoiding multiplayer maps
I've played both Frontlines and Modern Warfare on my 360 this past week, and the differences between them are staggering. Each game has advantages over the other. Many of the differences are of style, rather than quality.
One key difference is serving hosting. In Modern Warfare, players host the games, so games are often interrupted or ended before they even really begin. It's very annoying, but that's not what I want to talk about. What quickly becomes clear is that hosts often end a game short because they do not like a particular map. In any competitive multiplayer game that moves automatically from one map to another, players complain about maps. But that people cut games short, knowing they'll get an earful from those their playing with, shows just how much a map can be disliked. That begs the question:
Is it not possible to give players complete freedom in which maps they play?
Of course, a player can simply leave a current host when a bad map comes up, but he'll have to leave again with whatever host he finds next. It's annoying. That would also mean abandoning the fellow players who he has hopefully been building a rapport or rivalry with (a skilled enemy player can be similar to a "hero" or "boss" enemy in single-player gameplay). The ideal would be to enable a player to have an unbroken play-session without any content that player dislikes.
With a game as popular as Modern Warfare, the solution seems simple. Allow hosts to customize a map series by simply selecting checkboxes, then allow other players to see that customized list before joining. With eight or ten maps, there are many possible combinations... and that significantly divides the player population. But with a player population of over a hundred thousand at any given time and fewer than twenty players per map, I doubt it's a problem even with matchmaking dividing players further. That's something Infinity Ward should consider for MW2.
But most games don't have such massive player populations. Even MW will get old and its populations will dwindle. So what's a solution for them?
One key difference is serving hosting. In Modern Warfare, players host the games, so games are often interrupted or ended before they even really begin. It's very annoying, but that's not what I want to talk about. What quickly becomes clear is that hosts often end a game short because they do not like a particular map. In any competitive multiplayer game that moves automatically from one map to another, players complain about maps. But that people cut games short, knowing they'll get an earful from those their playing with, shows just how much a map can be disliked. That begs the question:
Is it not possible to give players complete freedom in which maps they play?
Of course, a player can simply leave a current host when a bad map comes up, but he'll have to leave again with whatever host he finds next. It's annoying. That would also mean abandoning the fellow players who he has hopefully been building a rapport or rivalry with (a skilled enemy player can be similar to a "hero" or "boss" enemy in single-player gameplay). The ideal would be to enable a player to have an unbroken play-session without any content that player dislikes.
With a game as popular as Modern Warfare, the solution seems simple. Allow hosts to customize a map series by simply selecting checkboxes, then allow other players to see that customized list before joining. With eight or ten maps, there are many possible combinations... and that significantly divides the player population. But with a player population of over a hundred thousand at any given time and fewer than twenty players per map, I doubt it's a problem even with matchmaking dividing players further. That's something Infinity Ward should consider for MW2.
But most games don't have such massive player populations. Even MW will get old and its populations will dwindle. So what's a solution for them?
Monday, April 27, 2009
multiplayer personalities and UI
One of the things that made Perfect Dark 64 great was the variation in AI personalities. As I recall, the sims I included most often were the JudgeSim, VengeSim, and KazeSim.
Anyone who played that game realizes how much fun those personalities added. Players could be given a similar mix of roles with supportive interfaces.
For example, a player in the role of Judge could be shown only the player with the most kills on radar. The same could be done for a Venge role. Another player's role might be to lay traps and explosives.
Such multiplayer might get complicated, but roles of this general style are worth considering.
Also, it's not always necessary for competitors to each have access to a type of knowledge (like radar). It can be alright for one player to have different information and tools than another player, as long as that's considered in the rest of design.
Anyone who played that game realizes how much fun those personalities added. Players could be given a similar mix of roles with supportive interfaces.
For example, a player in the role of Judge could be shown only the player with the most kills on radar. The same could be done for a Venge role. Another player's role might be to lay traps and explosives.
Such multiplayer might get complicated, but roles of this general style are worth considering.
Also, it's not always necessary for competitors to each have access to a type of knowledge (like radar). It can be alright for one player to have different information and tools than another player, as long as that's considered in the rest of design.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
what RPGs could learn from CoD4
One of Call of Duty 4's best features is its encouragement of variation through the Barracks and experience points. You can rank up without ever using more than one weapon, but there are bonuses to be had in trying many weapons. I'm not usually an achievement-oriented gamer, but I try to get every accomplishment with every weapon in that game.
The most experimentation a typical RPG encourages is swapping between melee and ranged attacks. But they could use a model similar to CoD4's. Instead of making every weapon a separate skill path, you could just have weapon upgrades be unlocked through use and encourage (without demanding) the player to try something new from time to time.
That applies to single-player as well as multiplayer. But, now that I think about it, I'm surprised I've never seen a fantasy battleground game (ala LOTR: Conquest) with weapon and skill variety similar to Call of Duty 4. Instead of ammo, melee weapons could have durability stats and eventually break... forcing the player to either switch weapons or pick up whatever's lying on the ground where another player fell. It doesn't take much imagination to see how CoD4's multiplayer could be adapted to many settings and scenarios.
In any case, my point is that RPGs shouldn't always expect players to stick with a single weapon class. It's feasible for all skills (like Perks) to be gear-agnostic. The same player may prefer different weapons and gear for different scenarios. And, of course, variation can keep gameplay fresh and enjoyable.
The most experimentation a typical RPG encourages is swapping between melee and ranged attacks. But they could use a model similar to CoD4's. Instead of making every weapon a separate skill path, you could just have weapon upgrades be unlocked through use and encourage (without demanding) the player to try something new from time to time.
That applies to single-player as well as multiplayer. But, now that I think about it, I'm surprised I've never seen a fantasy battleground game (ala LOTR: Conquest) with weapon and skill variety similar to Call of Duty 4. Instead of ammo, melee weapons could have durability stats and eventually break... forcing the player to either switch weapons or pick up whatever's lying on the ground where another player fell. It doesn't take much imagination to see how CoD4's multiplayer could be adapted to many settings and scenarios.
In any case, my point is that RPGs shouldn't always expect players to stick with a single weapon class. It's feasible for all skills (like Perks) to be gear-agnostic. The same player may prefer different weapons and gear for different scenarios. And, of course, variation can keep gameplay fresh and enjoyable.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
AI support strategic gameplay
I've decided to let yesterday's question sit for a day, so there's more time for feedback. In the meantime, I'm going to revisit an old subject: how AI competitors can augment human competition.
AI can be more conducive to player strategy than player opponents. Strategy is only possible to the extent that things can be predicted. If you can't foresee something, then you can't plan for it. Of course, sometimes predictability includes the lack thereof (you expect that something unexpected will occur, though you don't know exactly what).
Playing against a particular "personality" many times allows the player to gradually adapt, to develop a strategy over the course of multiple play-sessions. In multiplayer, human personalities are often unstable... meaning that players have fluid styles (due to mood, learning, or battle scenarios), they make impulsive decisions, etc. There's also frequent personality turnover, meaning that you're constantly playing new competitors and there are long intermissions between battles against any one competitor.
AI in the form of "multiplayer" bots serve two main functions. First, they prepare players for facing particular strategies and scenarios. There's wide discrepancy between how much time different players need for this. Second, they can offer a fun alternative to unpredictable nature of human beings. Even players who enjoy the challenge and dynamics of human competition sometimes want a change of pace, a different experience. AI can act as a nice balance and prevent players from burning out.
There are other potential uses, but I just wanted to emphasize the value of AI for supporting strategic gameplay. Don't think of bots as an alternative to players. Interaction with bots can aid interaction between players.
And don't think that AI in a single-player campaign acts in the same way.
AI can be more conducive to player strategy than player opponents. Strategy is only possible to the extent that things can be predicted. If you can't foresee something, then you can't plan for it. Of course, sometimes predictability includes the lack thereof (you expect that something unexpected will occur, though you don't know exactly what).
Playing against a particular "personality" many times allows the player to gradually adapt, to develop a strategy over the course of multiple play-sessions. In multiplayer, human personalities are often unstable... meaning that players have fluid styles (due to mood, learning, or battle scenarios), they make impulsive decisions, etc. There's also frequent personality turnover, meaning that you're constantly playing new competitors and there are long intermissions between battles against any one competitor.
AI in the form of "multiplayer" bots serve two main functions. First, they prepare players for facing particular strategies and scenarios. There's wide discrepancy between how much time different players need for this. Second, they can offer a fun alternative to unpredictable nature of human beings. Even players who enjoy the challenge and dynamics of human competition sometimes want a change of pace, a different experience. AI can act as a nice balance and prevent players from burning out.
There are other potential uses, but I just wanted to emphasize the value of AI for supporting strategic gameplay. Don't think of bots as an alternative to players. Interaction with bots can aid interaction between players.
And don't think that AI in a single-player campaign acts in the same way.
Monday, March 23, 2009
TV spectating: the question
The Sci-Fi channel has apparently taken the leap into game spectating. From what I've read, though, their WCG Ultimate Gamer show is as much reality TV as spectating. I don't like that idea, but it raises the question of what sort of show could make game battles popular on TV.
What elements make for compelling game spectatorship?
As I try to answer that question, it would help if we could identify games which already appeal to spectators. What games have you played that your fellow gamers and even non-gamers have enjoyed watching you play?
The most obvious example in my own experience is LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. Non-gamers young and old have hovered over me, fascinated, as I play that game. A semi-gamer cousin remarked, "I could watch you play that all day".
Mario Kart is another one. In that case, it's as much the social atmosphere that it encourages as the game itself.
The more games we can identify that appeal to spectators, the easier it will be for me to identify traits that make those fun to watch. What do you think?
What elements make for compelling game spectatorship?
As I try to answer that question, it would help if we could identify games which already appeal to spectators. What games have you played that your fellow gamers and even non-gamers have enjoyed watching you play?
The most obvious example in my own experience is LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. Non-gamers young and old have hovered over me, fascinated, as I play that game. A semi-gamer cousin remarked, "I could watch you play that all day".
Mario Kart is another one. In that case, it's as much the social atmosphere that it encourages as the game itself.
The more games we can identify that appeal to spectators, the easier it will be for me to identify traits that make those fun to watch. What do you think?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
CoD6 suggestions
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is one of the best games on the 360. But no game's perfect, so here's some changes I would make for CoD6. I'll also throw in some ideas for the campaign.
SINGLEPLAYER
American troops and our allies are stationed all over the world at any given moment. So how about some settings we're not used to seeing (southeast Asia, north Africa, South America, etc)? If the Middle East is again the focus, then possible settings include the caves of Afghanistan or a battle within a single building, such as a school or ampitheater.
Weather is a major factor in warfare. Hell, it has outright won or lost battles and even wars. Show us. Gusts of wind can displace tossed grenades and spread fires. Tropical rain can disrupt vision, slow movement, and make ways impassable. A sandstorm could trap enemies together
Soldiers don't just work and interact with fellow soldiers. Make civilians, combatants and non-combatants, a part of gameplay. In fact, you might include one level in which the player goes on a light-hearted hunting trip with a local civilian, to bind the player emotionally to the town or whatever he later defends and remind the player that war isn't always constant battles. I suggest hunting because that is a civilian activity based on the same basic gameplay (shooting), requiring less scripting and new assets.
Introduce friendly fire and civilian casualties. Both are a part of every war. If well implemented, this could get more emotional investment from the player.
CO-OP
Take your cues from Left 4 Dead. As I've said before, that game has the best representation of dependence and sacrifice of any game I've played to date. Brotherhood is a central theme in every branch of military, and cooperative gameplay is where that needs to shine.
Sacrifice is key. Enable the player to give to fellow players and companion NPCs in ways that hurt his own character and his own playtime. Regarding NPCs, I've written before on empathy. Regarding fellow players, consider the example in Left 4 Dead of one player telling others to leave him or her behind to save themselves... a request which means the person is no longer playing for a while, only watching and talking to the other players (sometimes feeding them valuable intel)... though obviously it's usually better if all players remain playing.
MULTIPLAYER
Every time the player goes to the "Select Class" screen, show a number by each class to indicate how many allies are currently playing each class. That will allow versatile players to fill in the gaps; help us see which roles are needed at any given moment.
Allow us to mute players without having to go to their gamercard screen.
Again, weather. If it was different from battle to battle (the same map), that could make for a fun dynamic.
You might be able to encourage a better social atmosphere by enabling players to vote each other up or down in a leadership ranking, separate from combat ranking. Real militaries do not promote soldiers purely for weapon skills and combat prowess, but also for exemplary social actions... like taking risks for other players, going back for injured comrades, helping others to improve, offering inspiration, and basically providing for the needs of others. How exactly to reward players for such behavior, I'm not sure. But it would definitely be worth it to promote sacrifice and philanthropy in the multiplayer community through tangible rewards, similar to a Purple Heart or Silver Star.
Again, sacrifice. Allow a player to give ammo to an ally, thereby depleting his own resources. Or allow a player to "cry for help", making his icon on allies' maps blink, to indicate he could use backup when he finds himself the only one guarding a flag in Domination or having run out of ammo.
What are your ideas?
SINGLEPLAYER
American troops and our allies are stationed all over the world at any given moment. So how about some settings we're not used to seeing (southeast Asia, north Africa, South America, etc)? If the Middle East is again the focus, then possible settings include the caves of Afghanistan or a battle within a single building, such as a school or ampitheater.
Weather is a major factor in warfare. Hell, it has outright won or lost battles and even wars. Show us. Gusts of wind can displace tossed grenades and spread fires. Tropical rain can disrupt vision, slow movement, and make ways impassable. A sandstorm could trap enemies together
Soldiers don't just work and interact with fellow soldiers. Make civilians, combatants and non-combatants, a part of gameplay. In fact, you might include one level in which the player goes on a light-hearted hunting trip with a local civilian, to bind the player emotionally to the town or whatever he later defends and remind the player that war isn't always constant battles. I suggest hunting because that is a civilian activity based on the same basic gameplay (shooting), requiring less scripting and new assets.
Introduce friendly fire and civilian casualties. Both are a part of every war. If well implemented, this could get more emotional investment from the player.
CO-OP
Take your cues from Left 4 Dead. As I've said before, that game has the best representation of dependence and sacrifice of any game I've played to date. Brotherhood is a central theme in every branch of military, and cooperative gameplay is where that needs to shine.
Sacrifice is key. Enable the player to give to fellow players and companion NPCs in ways that hurt his own character and his own playtime. Regarding NPCs, I've written before on empathy. Regarding fellow players, consider the example in Left 4 Dead of one player telling others to leave him or her behind to save themselves... a request which means the person is no longer playing for a while, only watching and talking to the other players (sometimes feeding them valuable intel)... though obviously it's usually better if all players remain playing.
MULTIPLAYER
Every time the player goes to the "Select Class" screen, show a number by each class to indicate how many allies are currently playing each class. That will allow versatile players to fill in the gaps; help us see which roles are needed at any given moment.
Allow us to mute players without having to go to their gamercard screen.
Again, weather. If it was different from battle to battle (the same map), that could make for a fun dynamic.
You might be able to encourage a better social atmosphere by enabling players to vote each other up or down in a leadership ranking, separate from combat ranking. Real militaries do not promote soldiers purely for weapon skills and combat prowess, but also for exemplary social actions... like taking risks for other players, going back for injured comrades, helping others to improve, offering inspiration, and basically providing for the needs of others. How exactly to reward players for such behavior, I'm not sure. But it would definitely be worth it to promote sacrifice and philanthropy in the multiplayer community through tangible rewards, similar to a Purple Heart or Silver Star.
Again, sacrifice. Allow a player to give ammo to an ally, thereby depleting his own resources. Or allow a player to "cry for help", making his icon on allies' maps blink, to indicate he could use backup when he finds himself the only one guarding a flag in Domination or having run out of ammo.
What are your ideas?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Crank
I'm surprised the movie Crank hasn't been made into a game. Well, it has, but I mean a big AAA 360/PS3/PC game.
If you've never seen the film, the gist is that the protagonist has been poisoned and his heart will stop if he doesn't keep adrenaline running through his veins.
Imagine a game where you can't stand still for long. You have to constantly be sprinting, speeding, shooting, tumbling, or keeping the pace up in some other just to stay alive. The basis of the game is that the pace is almost always intense.
Adrenalin does warp a person's concept of time, so I suppose the game might be perforated with moments of slow-motion. That might be a reward for maxing out adrenalin, or it might occur at specific moments of the game (such as a gun battle involving many enemies or a squeeze through European alleys with a sportscar).
It could make for some fun multiplayer, too. Imagine how hectic a battle would be if player's couldn't afford to poach or pause long in cover. In fact, it might make for an interesting multiplayer mode in other games.
If you've never seen the film, the gist is that the protagonist has been poisoned and his heart will stop if he doesn't keep adrenaline running through his veins.
Imagine a game where you can't stand still for long. You have to constantly be sprinting, speeding, shooting, tumbling, or keeping the pace up in some other just to stay alive. The basis of the game is that the pace is almost always intense.
Adrenalin does warp a person's concept of time, so I suppose the game might be perforated with moments of slow-motion. That might be a reward for maxing out adrenalin, or it might occur at specific moments of the game (such as a gun battle involving many enemies or a squeeze through European alleys with a sportscar).
It could make for some fun multiplayer, too. Imagine how hectic a battle would be if player's couldn't afford to poach or pause long in cover. In fact, it might make for an interesting multiplayer mode in other games.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
matchmaking by values
Ah, the immortal hardcore-casual debate. Look, there are two kinds of gamers:
this guy
... and this guy.
Alright, so it's not that simple, but you get my point.
For many gamers, the greatest thrill is found in achievement; beating the odds, surpassing all obstacles, being better than your fellows, and (above all) winning. Such people don't just handle struggle, they embrace it. The harder the challenge, the greater the achievement.
For other gamers, like me, the greatest thrills are found in unexpected moment-to-moment experiences. While other folks are busting their butts for trophies and bragging rights, we're on the sideline enjoying hot dogs and cheerleaders. Sure, we're out to achieve goals to, but we're taking our time about it, going the scenic route, loving the distractions, and laughing as we tackle challenges in the most inefficient ways.
Why, oh why, do developers keep shoving us together?
Don't get me wrong. The best multiplayer systems capitalize on the existence of different playstyles by enabling cooperative roles suited to those playstyles. But it's ridiculous that matchmaking programs and other multiplayer systems rarely help players of similar gaming values to find each other.
Simply allowing players to check a box in your matchmaker for "hardcore" or "recreational" does not help, since everyone has a different understanding of what those labels mean. Simply enabling the existence of guilds for every type without helping players find the guilds that fit them is not enough. Sites like GamerDNA help, but only a fraction of your players will know about it or be interested in an account on a peripheral site.
I hate listening to another player tell me I'm suppose to play a class a particular way, complaining about the lack of coordination, bragging about what a badass he is, and so on. And players like that hate playing with people who don't stick to optimal strategies, who don't put in the practice to get headshots every time, who don't know all the slang and every scrap of knowledge about the game, people who laugh at defeat.
For Pete's sake, let us play with people we enjoy! When I log onto World at War on XBL and there are almost a quarter of a million people playing too, there's no reason we all have to be in the same match pool. More people would group in MMOs if they were not always having to roll the dice and hope this group won't be full of obsessive jerks or lazy idiots.
this guy
... and this guy.
Alright, so it's not that simple, but you get my point.
For many gamers, the greatest thrill is found in achievement; beating the odds, surpassing all obstacles, being better than your fellows, and (above all) winning. Such people don't just handle struggle, they embrace it. The harder the challenge, the greater the achievement.
For other gamers, like me, the greatest thrills are found in unexpected moment-to-moment experiences. While other folks are busting their butts for trophies and bragging rights, we're on the sideline enjoying hot dogs and cheerleaders. Sure, we're out to achieve goals to, but we're taking our time about it, going the scenic route, loving the distractions, and laughing as we tackle challenges in the most inefficient ways.
Why, oh why, do developers keep shoving us together?
Don't get me wrong. The best multiplayer systems capitalize on the existence of different playstyles by enabling cooperative roles suited to those playstyles. But it's ridiculous that matchmaking programs and other multiplayer systems rarely help players of similar gaming values to find each other.
Simply allowing players to check a box in your matchmaker for "hardcore" or "recreational" does not help, since everyone has a different understanding of what those labels mean. Simply enabling the existence of guilds for every type without helping players find the guilds that fit them is not enough. Sites like GamerDNA help, but only a fraction of your players will know about it or be interested in an account on a peripheral site.
I hate listening to another player tell me I'm suppose to play a class a particular way, complaining about the lack of coordination, bragging about what a badass he is, and so on. And players like that hate playing with people who don't stick to optimal strategies, who don't put in the practice to get headshots every time, who don't know all the slang and every scrap of knowledge about the game, people who laugh at defeat.
For Pete's sake, let us play with people we enjoy! When I log onto World at War on XBL and there are almost a quarter of a million people playing too, there's no reason we all have to be in the same match pool. More people would group in MMOs if they were not always having to roll the dice and hope this group won't be full of obsessive jerks or lazy idiots.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
grand finale in multiplayer
One thing most multiplayer modes seem to be lacking is a grand finale. In deathmatch, capture the flag, king of the hill, and control points modes, tension does rise as one team nears the necessary score or time is running out. But the game ends with no special event. Whether by holding a control point or getting the last headshot, the end feels basically like the beginning.
I enjoy those traditional modes, but I'd like to see a mode or two in which each match ends with a bang. I'm sure there are countless ways it could be done, but I'll try to offer a quick example.
NUKE 'EM
The first scenario that pops into mind is teams of players racing and fighting to reach and fully control a bomb shelter, then nuking the other team.
Unlike Left 4 Dead, all members of a team must be present in the shelter and all members of the other team must be expelled from the shelter before the doors can be shut and the nuke detonated. Both teams would begin away from the compound, each with various spawn points on all sides of the map which are close to enemy spawn points. That splits the mode's goal into two: (1) reach and enter the compound, (2) defend the compound until all allies are in and expel all enemies. I don't doubt that the latter concept would need to be adjusted significantly during the prototype phase of design.
Since I love dynamics, I'd add plenty of environmental factors: neutral NPCs (aggressive or territorial), traps, etc.
The game ends with the shelter doors being quickly sealed. The nuke detonation wouldn't be a cutscene or long, but it would not be instantaneous either. That way, the teams have time to savor and dread the moment. It would look something like the detonation scene in The Sum of All Fears:
See what I mean?
I enjoy those traditional modes, but I'd like to see a mode or two in which each match ends with a bang. I'm sure there are countless ways it could be done, but I'll try to offer a quick example.
NUKE 'EM
The first scenario that pops into mind is teams of players racing and fighting to reach and fully control a bomb shelter, then nuking the other team.
Unlike Left 4 Dead, all members of a team must be present in the shelter and all members of the other team must be expelled from the shelter before the doors can be shut and the nuke detonated. Both teams would begin away from the compound, each with various spawn points on all sides of the map which are close to enemy spawn points. That splits the mode's goal into two: (1) reach and enter the compound, (2) defend the compound until all allies are in and expel all enemies. I don't doubt that the latter concept would need to be adjusted significantly during the prototype phase of design.
Since I love dynamics, I'd add plenty of environmental factors: neutral NPCs (aggressive or territorial), traps, etc.
The game ends with the shelter doors being quickly sealed. The nuke detonation wouldn't be a cutscene or long, but it would not be instantaneous either. That way, the teams have time to savor and dread the moment. It would look something like the detonation scene in The Sum of All Fears:
See what I mean?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
better matchmaking
So apparently Blogger posts a blog if I accidentally hit Enter after typing the title. Sorry about the blank RSS feed.
Anyway, some recent experiences in Left 4 Dead have convinced me that Xbox Live, and other multiplayer services, could use better matchmaking.
The first experience was trying to add someone as a friend and being told she's reached her friend limit. That made me think... it's a shame that I can't be more likely to play with someone without putting them on my friends list.
The second experience is having run into a lot of exploiters and jerks this past week. There's a Left 4 Dead exploit that involves blocking an elevator exit, so the survivors are trapped -- the game effectively comes to a halt. One of my teammates did it and told me he thought it's hilarious, even though he admits he hates it happening to him. Other strangers I've played with have abandoned their teammates to rush ahead, or constantly complained about greener players not playing up to their standards, or focused on particular strategies so exclusively that fun falls by the wayside.
Some of these behaviors really just mean a person with a particular playstyle shouldn't be matched with players who have very different values, strategies, and levels of experience. It's like the classic RTS playstyles: zerg, balanced, and turtle. Each player generally prefer play as and against one or another style.
What I'd like to see is a system that allows each player to privately rank others according to preference, affecting only the odds of those people coming up in game searches.
Such a system better takes into account that two players might not play well together yet neither of them is doing anything wrong; like an explorer and an achiever playing the same game with vastly different goals and interests. It doesn't separate players entirely, but the odds keep them apart enough to prevent frustration and boredom. This also encourages gamers to play with their friends, but not only with their friends... creating the possibility of making new friends and being challenged in new ways.
It also helps for each game to list classifications related to that game in particular. For example, RTS players would love it if they could choose when to play against zerg tactics and when to play against turtles. Every player will want play a game in different ways depending on mood, recent experiences, and other factors.
How else could game matchmaking be improved?
Anyway, some recent experiences in Left 4 Dead have convinced me that Xbox Live, and other multiplayer services, could use better matchmaking.
The first experience was trying to add someone as a friend and being told she's reached her friend limit. That made me think... it's a shame that I can't be more likely to play with someone without putting them on my friends list.
The second experience is having run into a lot of exploiters and jerks this past week. There's a Left 4 Dead exploit that involves blocking an elevator exit, so the survivors are trapped -- the game effectively comes to a halt. One of my teammates did it and told me he thought it's hilarious, even though he admits he hates it happening to him. Other strangers I've played with have abandoned their teammates to rush ahead, or constantly complained about greener players not playing up to their standards, or focused on particular strategies so exclusively that fun falls by the wayside.
Some of these behaviors really just mean a person with a particular playstyle shouldn't be matched with players who have very different values, strategies, and levels of experience. It's like the classic RTS playstyles: zerg, balanced, and turtle. Each player generally prefer play as and against one or another style.
What I'd like to see is a system that allows each player to privately rank others according to preference, affecting only the odds of those people coming up in game searches.
Such a system better takes into account that two players might not play well together yet neither of them is doing anything wrong; like an explorer and an achiever playing the same game with vastly different goals and interests. It doesn't separate players entirely, but the odds keep them apart enough to prevent frustration and boredom. This also encourages gamers to play with their friends, but not only with their friends... creating the possibility of making new friends and being challenged in new ways.
It also helps for each game to list classifications related to that game in particular. For example, RTS players would love it if they could choose when to play against zerg tactics and when to play against turtles. Every player will want play a game in different ways depending on mood, recent experiences, and other factors.
How else could game matchmaking be improved?
Thursday, November 27, 2008
multiplayer stand-ins
Another aspect of Left 4 Dead which should be considered by all designers is the option for an AI stand-in during multiplayer.
Most gamers acknowledge that gaming takes a backseat to other things, including everyday distractions like phone calls. In most multiplayer games, gameplay cannot be paused; and when gameplay can be paused, at least one person is left sitting idly in boredom. Left 4 Dead allows a player to call an AI substitute, so others can go on playing.
It's not a perfect feature. Any AI is imperfect, and a substitution can mean someone is temporarily playing by himself. But I'd still recommend a similar feature for almost any multiplayer game (excluding MMOs).
I'm enjoying Thanksgiving out of town this week, but hopefully I'll be able to keep posting stuff here 'til I get back. My thanks to God for all our many blessings.
Most gamers acknowledge that gaming takes a backseat to other things, including everyday distractions like phone calls. In most multiplayer games, gameplay cannot be paused; and when gameplay can be paused, at least one person is left sitting idly in boredom. Left 4 Dead allows a player to call an AI substitute, so others can go on playing.
It's not a perfect feature. Any AI is imperfect, and a substitution can mean someone is temporarily playing by himself. But I'd still recommend a similar feature for almost any multiplayer game (excluding MMOs).
I'm enjoying Thanksgiving out of town this week, but hopefully I'll be able to keep posting stuff here 'til I get back. My thanks to God for all our many blessings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
